Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.

Can you indicate what, in the picture specifically, we should be observing?

 

[kookbreaker]

Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.

That picture does not seem to relate to anything you say.

 

[Christophera]

That picture does not seem to relate to anything you say.

It does not show steel core columns and that is what NIST says stood which is what i say so you are wrong. It shows exactly what I say.

How about suppporting NIST, they need help.

Covering for the murderers of 3000 Americans is not easy.

 

[Christophera]

Can you indicate what, in the picture specifically, we should be observing?

You see nothing that NIST says should be there. Thank you for confirming this.

 

[Christophera]

I'm not involved in this thread, get it. I'm not here. But will somebody tell this moonbat troll that this link he posted that supposedly shows a nonexistent concrete core still standing, actually shows the very real 1 Liberty Plaza building, at Church & Liberty Street, right across from the south tower

eta: scratch that. 1 Liberty is back there but we can't see it. We're looking at the dust plume only. 800' of core did not remain standing. There was no concrete core to the Twin Towers. They did not fall at free-fall speeds, nor did they take "20 seconds" to fall, moonbat troll.

Here is the concrete core of WTC 2 standing a little lower.

 

[Christophera]

Second page of this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1662593&postcount=57

Gravy provided still images conclusively proving that the towers did not come down at free fall rates, just as you had asked him to do.

If you need further assistance, do not be afraid to ask. This is, after all, a board devoted to truth seekers and asnwering questions.

That provide no proof for the tower that FEMA states existed.

This photo shows the core FEMA says existed was not there.

That is an interior box column, not inside the cor and NO steel columns show inside the core.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You see nothing that NIST says should be there. Thank you for confirming this.

I confirmed nothing. I asked what elements of the picture we should focus upon. DO NOT CHANGE THE CONTEXT OF MY WORDS.

 

[Christophera]

So you admit then that the towers did not collapse at free fall?

Why would you make a claim that you already knew was not true?

It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.

Here is a video of firefighters talking about how it fell that fast.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mp

 

[Christophera]

Could it be that they were constructed identically?

Clearly you know very little about the Twin towers. They were not identical. The cores were constructed with different hallways.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.

Here is a video of firefighters talking about how it fell that fast.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mp

That's odd, because in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1663359#post1663359 I'm pretty sure I provided a number of links showing the estimates at ranging from 8 to 16 seconds, with 16 seconds being 73% greater than the calculated 9.22 seconds for freefall.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Clearly you know very little about the Twin towers. They were not identical. The cores were constructed with different hallways.

[qimg]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/images/sf_gallery_04.jpg[/qimg]

A picture is not evidence that they were constructed with different hallways. Please provide technical evidence that this was the case.

 

[The_Fire]

A picture is not evidence that they were constructed with different hallways. Please provide technical evidence that this was the case.

I second that.

 

[kookbreaker]

It is a claim everybody recognizes because the rate of fall was so close to free fall.

It was not close to freefall.

Here is a video of firefighters talking about how it fell that fast.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mp

So? This is not evidence. That would be likeing saying my commenting that a race car is going fast is evidence that it is going faster than the speed of sound.

 

[Christophera]

A picture is not evidence that they were constructed with different hallways. Please provide technical evidence that this was the case.

The NY mayor took all the plans.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

and will not return them. The picture is an absolute. If you cannot use it, that is your problem.

 

[Christophera]

That's odd, because in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1663359#post1663359 I'm pretty sure I provided a number of links showing the estimates at ranging from 8 to 16 seconds, with 16 seconds being 73% greater than the calculated 9.22 seconds for freefall.

Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core is going to fall like that. No one here has prived a single image of the core NIST says stood.

The inability to produce a raw image of the supposed core columns is underlined by the irrational insistence that the free fall rate must be determined exactly. I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate and you have no raw evidence to counter that assertion.

 

[strathmeyer]

What evidence do you have that the twin towers fell at freefall? I'd like to see it.

 

[Christophera]

It was not close to freefall.

So? This is not evidence. That would be likeing saying my commenting that a race car is going fast is evidence that it is going faster than the speed of sound.

Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Come up with some evidence to support your assertions.

 

[Mercutio]

Those emergency professionals have witnessed controlled demolition and know what high explosive detonations sound like.

That is only part of the equation. You do not know that they know what the other assorted explosions sound like (as mentioned, everything from fire extinguishers to soda cans, any sort of sealed containers), and whether they can distinguish between these other explosions and "high explosive detonations" amidst the background noise of thousands of panicked people and an out-of-control fire.

Fortunately for you, this is quite testable. Suitable recordings of any of the stimulus materials could be mixed in recordings, and you can ask any firefighter you like to try to distinguish between the two types of explosion.

I would suggest not telling them the purpose of your study, though, or you might find yourself looking around for missing teeth. What you are suggesting is that these firefighters are either bribable or cowardly in their hesitance to come forward with "the truth". The simpler explanation is, of course, that they know the difference between "sounds like an explosion" and "must be high explosive detonations", and have quite thoughtfully dismissed their initial perceptions.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core is going to fall like that. No one here has prived a single image of the core NIST says stood.

The inability to produce a raw image of the supposed core columns is underlined by the irrational insistence that the free fall rate must be determined exactly. I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate and you have no raw evidence to counter that assertion.

What the hell are you talking about?

NIST says a core stood? How did they describe this core? Where did they say this? How do your pictures contradict it?

How does this:

Still much to fast and there is no way the concrete core is going to fall like that.

square with this:

I'm saying the concrete core is what enabled the fast fall rate

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again, instead of addressing people's responses to them? Why do you keep posting pictures that have no connection to what you are writing? Why do you keep writing things that contradict themselves?

 

[pgwenthold]

Still much to fast

So we are back to the question you didn't answer last night.

How long SHOULD it have taken them to fall, and how did you obtain that result.